The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1887-06-21

| ana conclusive! statesmen ana law
yers answer, and answering affirm or
deny TINT the decisions Of the supreme
courts are binding upon State and citi-
zen, upon property owner and voter
The bill of rights declares that some
things are forbidden.
II commands that "No law shall
ever be passed curtailing tho liberty OF
speech Or of the press' THAT "no
man shall be compelled to attend,
erect, or support any place of worship,
or to maintain any ministry against
his consent. That "The people shall
be secure in their persons, houses, pos
sessions and papers from all I'M
reasonable seizures and searches, and
that no warrant to search any place or
to seize any person or thing shall issue
without describing them rs rcar as
may be, nor without probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation :;
that the writ of habeas corpus shall
never be suspended: excessive bail
shall not be required; the right OF
trial BY jury shall remain inviolate.
No PERSONS property shall be taken
tor public use without adequate COM
pcnsation. No person shall be i'm
prisoned Tor debt. No citizen shall be
deprived Of life, liberty, property,
privileges or immunities, or in any
manner DISTINGUISHED except by due
course of the law of the land.
The citizens shall have the right IN
a peaceable manner to assemble to-
gether for their common coed aud
apply to those invested with the pow
ers of government for redress of
grievances or other purposes by petit
ton, address or remonstrance.
1t is difficult, indeed, to conceive of
any wrong that may be perpetrated
upon the citizen, putting in jeopardy
his liberties or personal rights, that is
not expressly prohibited by the bill of
rights found in our State constitu-
ton, or of any affirmative Legislation
demanded for securing and perpetual.
ing these rights that is not expressly
required by our constitution.
But neither the great men who
framed the federal constitution, nor
the lesser lights who framed our State
constitution thought the government
would be overthrown, the liberty Of
any citizen destroyed, or the rights of
man subverted, if law should be Gu
acted forbidding the manufacture or
sale of intoxicating beverages, and
therefore neither ms rted any provis-
ion forbidding such legislation. |
hazard nothing in saying that no con
stitution ever made in America forbids
such legislation.
On the contrary our constitution
recognizes the validity of such legisla-
ton, and affirms the principle by re-
quiring in emphatic language, that /:
"That the legislature shall at its first
session enact law whereby the quail.
fed voters Of any county, - by a
majority vote, from time to time, may
determine whether the sale of intoXi-
eating liquors SHALL BE PROHIBITED"
| Under this provision it is possible,
practicable, and proper, to forbid the
sale of intoxicating liquors throughout
all Texas.
History gives no account of any peo-
Pile who better understood the rights of
man or the principles of free govern
ment than did our own fore-fathers who
achieved the independence of the
United States.
Nopeople ever sacrificed or suffered
more for liberty than they did.
1t was to secure liberty by them so
hardly earned that they adopted the
constitution of the United States.
| have always understood that con-
stitution was made by the men who
achieved free government to maintain
it.
What that constitution fails to pro-
hibit can never endanger our liberties
and what it permits to be done can
never overthrow our government.
If the constitution was not made to
preserve democratic government and
secure the liberty of every citizen, its
purpose was misunderstood by the great
statesmen who inspired it, and it has
been misinterpreted by the people who
under its protection have prospered for
century.
That constitution does not prohibit
this amendment.
That constitution as it has been
amended. as it now exists with its
fourteenth amendment, allows the gen.
eral government and the state gov
ernments to pass laws prohibiting the
manufacture and sale of intoxicating
beverages.
II. in the history of the government,
doubtful questions under the constitu-
tisn have arisen, it has been, and is, the
duty of its judicial department to de-
eide, and that decision, when made, is
binding.
| This auestion has been often bafora